Joe O'Toole (Independent)

They were. I know the people who told them. The ones who told them had no connection with the IASA, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or any of those who worked on this legislation. They are the ones who make their living out of creating a market by bringing to them people worried about this issue and establishing courses to meet their concerns. We have to reassure people that that is not what we are intending to introduce. It is to marry the company books with the term "materially affect". That is the only part of the legislation at which we have to look. We will have to indicate how that will happen.

In order to address the point raised, I hope the Minister of State will take on board under subsection (4)(d)(ii) a phrase that would make it clear what was intended in so far as a person could reasonably attest or state or give a reasonable assurance. It is all about reasonableness and making a judgment on that basis. We should not move along on the basis of scaring people.

We have put much time into legislation covering areas such as the environment, equality and work. I find it impossible to argue against someone who asks me, as a legislator, if I am asking them to be supportive of those signing off on a compliance statement, even though they might be aware that they are breaking the law passed by these Houses. We need to approach the issue in a reasonable fashion.

I agreed with some of the concerns raised by Senators, including Senator Quinn. The Minister of State must reassure them that the issue of mountainous responsibilities on directors will not be the outcome of this legislation, that instead it is an articulation of what is contained in previous company legislation, that directors are responsible and the accounts are proper. It must deal closely with those directors who claimed they did not know during the inquiries of the last ten years, a matter about which we have spoken in the House. As politicians, we were held responsible for the fact that that owner of Dunnes Stores had made contributions that could not be found through a company audit because things did not have to be done in the way we asked them to be done. The question was raised of what was happening to ensure the same carry-on was not taking place in other companies. The answer was that there was nothing happening. The Committee of Public Accounts, therefore, directed both Houses to put something in place to ensure it did not happen again. Having said that, legislation cannot be over-bureaucratic.

I read about the decision taken last night by the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington to bring forward stringent regulations to make it a criminal offence and to ensure auditors did sign off on the compliance statement of a company.